This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] Cpu pools discussion

At 14:24 +0100 on 28 Jul (1248791073), Juergen Gross wrote:
> > Does strict partitioning of CPUs like this satisfy everyone's
> > requirements?  Bearing in mind that 
> > 
> >  - It's not work-conserving, i.e. it doesn't allow best-effort
> >    scheduling of pool A's vCPUs on the idle CPUs of pool B.
> > 
> >  - It restricts the maximum useful number of vCPUs per guest to the size
> >    of a pool rather than the size of the machine. 
> > 
> >  - dom0 would be restricted to a subset of CPUs.  That seems OK to me
> >    but occasionally people talk about having dom0's vCPUs pinned 1-1 on 
> >    the physical CPUs.
> You don't have to define other pools. You can just live with the default pool
> extended to all cpus and everything is as today.

Yep, all I'm saying is you can't do both.  If the people who want this
feature (so far I count two of you) want to do both, then this
solution's good not enough, and we should think about that before going
ahead with it.



Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Principal Software Engineer, Citrix Systems (R&D) Ltd.
[Company #02300071, SL9 0DZ, UK.]

Xen-devel mailing list